Editors should not be writers...

maestrowork said:

I suppose... but there's something about being "too perfect." Part of the fun of novels is that they are not written "perfectly." It's not to say an editor can't let loose and write wonderful prose that is already perfect, but there is, I supose, a tendency for an editor, whose job is to look for "flaws," to mull over minute imperfection just to, say, "get it right."

Click to expand...

I think a writer who doesn't have the same desire and ability to look for flaws is unlikely to write a very good novel. Many writers can't go to the next page until every flaw in the page they're working on is fixed. Dean Koontz rewrites each page thrity times before moving on. I don't even know an editor/writer who takes that much time and effort.

"Geting it right" from the beginning is every bit as common with writers as with editors, and I don't think there's anything inherently good about cutting loose that makes writing any better. Just the opposite. The last thing I want to do is put a bad sentence on paper, or even a sentence that is flawed in any way.

Not writing perfectly may be fun, but writing perfectly makes for better novels.

When editors are also writers, it's important for them to be able to edit objectively and not try to infuse other works with their own style and voice. Easier said than done for some.

Beth

reph said:

Ray, have you ever been an editor? Are you sure you haven't mapped an image of the stereotypical obsessive-compulsive onto your idea of editors?

Click to expand...

Yes, Reph, I have been editor, and yes, I have met editors who feel that way about their writing. BTW, Reph, I am not saying ALL editors are that way. I am sure many editors make great writers. I am just offering my "hypothesis" why some editors couldn't be writers...